ObamaCare subsidies have come up again in the courts, since exchanges "established by the states," is called a literal interpretation that only state exhange enrollees are eligible for ObamaCare subsidies. In the link, the people who actualy created the statute, had no such meaning, in mind. These framers, however, have not been consulted. They have a brief on file, even.
Here s what Obamacare s authors said they actually meant - The Washington Post
At the bottom of the link, even the opponents of the ACA had no such meaning of the wording, apparently, themselves. People closer to the problems of government, in the United States, would understand the legislation wording, absolutely perfectly.
Famously, in America, even governments go bankrupt. If the so-called, "literal" interpretation of the language of the federal statute were to prevail, then any state forced to default on the management of a state exchange would suddenly create a nowhere stated liability for the covered, under the federal statute.
Read again, the states do not become empowered in the federal legislation, to determine or not a federally granted benefit. There is no such statement, anywhere in the statute. In reality, there is no federal language in the statute, granting that right to the states. The usual federal interpretation is more likely that the individuals have the rights to the benefits. The states are not empowered with a new right to say no to individuals having benefits, or even federal money(?)!
Mostly, the states were empowered to ask the federal government to manage the exchanges for the people in their states.
"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Maybe courts
Here s what Obamacare s authors said they actually meant - The Washington Post
At the bottom of the link, even the opponents of the ACA had no such meaning of the wording, apparently, themselves. People closer to the problems of government, in the United States, would understand the legislation wording, absolutely perfectly.
Famously, in America, even governments go bankrupt. If the so-called, "literal" interpretation of the language of the federal statute were to prevail, then any state forced to default on the management of a state exchange would suddenly create a nowhere stated liability for the covered, under the federal statute.
Read again, the states do not become empowered in the federal legislation, to determine or not a federally granted benefit. There is no such statement, anywhere in the statute. In reality, there is no federal language in the statute, granting that right to the states. The usual federal interpretation is more likely that the individuals have the rights to the benefits. The states are not empowered with a new right to say no to individuals having benefits, or even federal money(?)!
Mostly, the states were empowered to ask the federal government to manage the exchanges for the people in their states.
"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Maybe courts
